Fact and friction in TV ads

SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A04

LENGTH: 580 words

LOAD-DATE: October 14, 2012

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone

PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper

Direct mail still a campaign force

BYLINE: Dan Eggen

SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A05

LENGTH: 1102 words

The modern political campaign has fully embraced Twitter, Facebook and other social media to reach voters, but President Obama and challenger Mitt Romney are still spending massive sums on a more traditional form of communication: snail mail.

The two presidential campaigns have spent nearly twice as much on old-fashioned fliers, get-out-the-vote cards and other forms of direct mail as they have on Internet advertising, according to disclosure data and campaign aides. The hope is to appeal to millions of baby boomers and retirees, who may prefer the familiarity of the U.S. Mail to pop-up ads, YouTube videos and other flashy media.

The only cost that outstrips mail is broadcast advertising, which is notoriously expensive and has been washing over swing states for months.

Direct mail is especially crucial for Romney, whose supporters skew older than Obama's. Romney and the Republican National Committee have spent more than $100 million on mail costs, compared with about $70 million for Obama and the Democrats.

One typical Romney mailing to seniors in Florida pledges to "preserve and strengthen Medicare" with "no change in benefits for those in or near retirement." It features an elderly couple and an older woman - all white - along with a picture of the Republican candidate and his wife, Ann.

"Florida Seniors CAN'T TRUST President Obama," the brochure reads above a picture of the president looking rather grim. It continues in capital red letters: "BARACK OBAMA HAS FAILED OUR SENIORS."

Richard Beeson, the Romney campaign's political director, said that direct mail is a central part of the campaign's outreach approach, which also includes digital strategies, phone canvassing and other methods aimed at engaging supporters.

"We are believers in voter contact," Beeson said. "There's a number of different ways to talk to voters, and the mail is one very effective way."

The use of mass direct mail in politics stretches back at least as far as George S. McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign, which deployed tactics perfected by the mail-order industry. The Religious Right movement of the 1980s married sophisticated voter lists with the reach of the U.S. Postal Service to become a potent political force.

Mailings are used to attack opponents, make policy promises, solicit donations and help supporters register to vote.

"The power of it is still huge because it's reaching that age group that includes baby boomers, who are still largely more comfortable with direct mail than other, newer forms of communication," said Paul Bobnak, research director for DirectMarketingIQ, a Philadelphia-based target marketing firm that tracks campaign mailings. "It is still a huge workhorse for political fundraising and messaging."

In 2008, more than half the voters in the presidential race were 45 or older, according to exit polls. Those 65 or older went for Republican John McCain by53 percent to 45 percent, while Obama ran about even with McCain among voters aged 45 to 64, the data show.

Effective and inexpensive

For many congressional candidates, trade unions and interest groups, direct mail offers a particularly effective, and inexpensive, way to reach supporters.

Last week, the AFL-CIO labor confederation sent out 150,000 mailers to its Ohio members attacking Romney and GOP Senate candidate Josh Mandel; the same households later received robocalls repeating the messages.

"Our testing shows that union members spend more time reading and recall more info from our mail program than just general mail from campaigns," said Ohio AFL-CIO spokesman Mike Gillis.

The Obama campaign has used mailings aimed at women, Latinos, pet owners and a host of other demographic subgroups, part of the campaign's sometimes obsessive use of micro-targeting. But Obama has also used mailings to press broader themes in key battlegrounds, including sharp-edged attacks on Romney's wealth, tax policies and history as a private equity fund manager.

Obama pamphlets that poured into Ohio in recent weeks featured images of Romney's oceanside manse in California and a stretch limousine with a fake license plate reading "ROMNEY 1ST."

One leaflet shows Romney piloting his luxury powerboat near his lakeside home in New Hampshire, first facing one direction and then another. The images seem to echo a famous 2004 Republican television ad that showed Democrat John F. Kerry switching back and forth as he windsurfed, which was supposed to symbolize flip-flopping and elitism.

"A NEW $250,000 Tax Cut For Multi-Millionaires - Like Himself. But up to $2,000 in Tax Hikes on Families Like Yours," the caption on the Obama powerboat mailing reads. "Not so fast, Mitt."

The Obama campaign declined to discuss its direct-mail strategy.

Under the radar

Unlike television ads, which are widely analyzed by the media, political mailings fly under the radar into voters' mailboxes, rarely getting much notice unless they are particularly provocative. A recent 10-page "voter survey" from the conservative Faith and Freedom Foundation accused Obama of having "Communist beliefs" and compared his policies to the danger posed by Nazi Germany and imperial Japan.

One of the most unusual postal pitches to emerge this year came from the Romney campaign, which mailed fliers to voters in Northern Virginia hawking the candidate's commitment to battling Lyme disease, which it called "a massive epidemic threatening Virginia." The message may be linked to a meeting Romney had with a Virginia Republican who believes in chronic Lyme disease, which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says does not exist.

"That's something that's very important to the folks in Fairfax County," Beeson said, referring to Lyme disease. "The Obama campaign made light of it, and that's fine, but at the end of the day we will talk about things that are important to people in the state."

Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group backed by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, said direct mail remains a linchpin of the organization's strategy. Mail "is especially good for reaching senior citizens" and works well for complex issues such as health care, he said.

But Phillips also said mailings must be coupled with telephone banks, e-mail, broadcast ads and other approaches to break through the media noise.

"The message environment today is so much faster and so much more cluttered than it was 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago," he said. "There is no silver bullet. You better be touching people through multiple mediums, multiple times. The goal is to have a presence in all of them."

eggend@washpost.com

LOAD-DATE: October 13, 2012

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone

PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper

BYLINE: - Sean Sullivan

SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A04

LENGTH: 448 words

Are Senate candidate debates making a difference?

Senate candidates are debating each other with increasing frequency as Election Day nears. While the debates have proved unique opportunities for candidates to pitch their politics, policies and personalities, the set-tos haven't dramatically shifted momentum in the races.

Take Massachusetts, home to the cycle's highest-profile Senate race. Sen. Scott Brown (R) and Elizabeth Warren (D) have debated three times and will meet once more Oct. 30. Polling shows that most voters are tuning in. But neither Brown nor Warren has decisively used the debates for an advantage.

More than six in 10 (61 percent) of those likeliest to vote had seen or heard at least one of the first two debates, according to a Western New England University survey conducted late last month and early this month. Among those voters, about as many said they were more likely to vote for Brown (30 percent) as for Warren (31 percent), based on the debate they most recently saw or heard. Thirty-seven percent said the debate didn't make a difference.

While the first two Brown-Warren sessions were filled with heated exchanges and one-liners, neither candidate committed a huge gaffe; nor did either candidate dominate the other. So it's not difficult to see why the first couple of meetings turned out as draws.

But in another contest in which there was a memorable misstep during a debate, it wasn't an end-all-be-all campaign moment.

In Virginia, former Democratic National Committee chairman Tim Kaine stole the spotlight at his Sept. 20 debate against former senator George Allen (R), but not the way his campaign wanted to see him do it. Kaine's remark that he would be open to "some minimum tax level for everyone" forced a post-debate explanation and became fodder for an Allen attack ad five days later.

On its own, the debate hasn't appeared enough to propel Allen into the lead, however. The Virginia race remains close - and has been all cycle - with most polls after the Sept. 20 meeting showing Kaine leading Allen by single digits.

At the presidential level, Mitt Romney's debate performance last week was widely praised, and Republicans moved quickly to cast the campaign anew in the days that followed. Democrats, meanwhile, were forced to explain the president's performance. That's not something we're likely to see at the Senate level, even after debates as one-sided as the first Romney-Obama meeting.

Why? For one thing, presidential debates simply attract more attention and generate more media coverage. The pomp and circumstance not to mention the audience surrounding a presidential debate could never be matched at the Senate level.

- Sean Sullivan

LOAD-DATE: October 13, 2012

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone

PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper

Airwaves flooded as race for president nears its end

BYLINE: Dan Eggen;T.W. Farnam

SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A04

LENGTH: 984 words

Republican nominee Mitt Romney and his allies are banking heavily on a high-risk, high-reward media strategy in the final weeks of the campaign, hoping that burying President Obama in ads will give them a crucial edge on Election Day.

Ad purchases in the presidential race doubled or in some cases tripled last week in swing states such as Colorado, Florida, Iowa and Virginia, tracking data show. The surge is being driven by Romney and well-funded allies, who decided against running more ads earlier in the campaign in favor of a big bang at the end.

Restore Our Future, a super PAC dedicated to helping Romney, has booked $14 million worth of ads in nine states for the final week of October - more than it spent on ads during the month of September. The group is also ramping up its spending, airing a mix of ads criticizing Obama and extolling Romney in Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio and Virginia.

Charles R. Spies, the super PAC's treasurer, said conservative groups "have been very effective in leveling the playing field" with Obama. "That effort will continue at an increasing level going forward," he said.

The GOP effort has gained momentum with Romney's advance in the polls since last week's presidential debate in Denver, where Obama turned in a widely panned performance. The Oct. 3 event sparked an influx of donations to Romney's campaign and to conservative groups supporting him, giving them more resources for the final push, strategists said.

The ramped-up advertising by Republicans left Obama behind his GOP foes in total ad expenditures last week for the first time since the summer, although he has massive cash reserves after raising $181 million in September. Obama and his key outside ally, the Priorities USA Action super PAC, have kept up a steady barrage of ads attacking Romney in Ohio and other battlegrounds.

Democrats and even some Republicans argue that the Romney team, particularly the campaign itself, wasted a key opportunity by ceding the ad advantage to Obama from late August through September, which coincided with a boost in the polls for the president.

Brad Todd, a Republican media strategist, said he suspects that the big push at the end is designed to reach voters displeased with Obama but unwilling to embrace Romney - fence-sitters who have delayed making up their minds.

"Advertising at the end typically makes the biggest difference to those voters," Todd said.

Since the Republican convention in late August, the Obama side has run 28 percent more ads than Romney and all the groups behind him combined, according to estimates from Kantar Media/CMAG. Democrats spent slightly more than Republicans during that time, taking advantage of rules mandating cheaper ad time for campaigns and also seeking out less-expensive airtime at different times of day.

But Romney and GOP groups are now flooding the airwaves in force, spending about 50 percent more on ads than Obama this week, according to tracking data. The surge comes at a fortuitous time for Romney, who is now even or ahead of Obama in many national and swing-state polls.

The Romney campaign declined to discuss its ad strategy in detail. An aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss internal plans said the campaign is likely to increase its volume further as Election Day approaches.

The Obama campaign also declined to comment.

The final 31 / 2 weeks of ad spending is likely to be the most concentrated in U.S. political history, in part because the field of battle is narrowly focused on nine key swing states. CMAG, the ad tracking firm, estimated Friday that about half as many television markets feature presidential campaign ads this year compared with 2008, even though the volume has skyrocketed.

Recent spending figures show a surprising move of resources into Florida, the biggest ad battleground, with 10 media markets and some of the most-expensive airtime in the country. In the first week of October, $1 of every $4 spent by the Obama campaign on broadcast advertising went to Florida; for the American Crossroads super PAC and its affiliate, Crossroads GPS, nearly $1 of every $3 was spent there.

Obama and Romney have gone up and down in Sunshine State polls in recent months, with the president posting strong numbers before the Denver debate but Romney gaining since.

The two sides have spent more than $100 million on ads in the state, with a slight advantage to Republicans.

Tad Devine, a top Democratic strategist, argues that in Florida, the Obama campaign "forced Romney to defend what should have been a Republican state."

Florida is followed closely in combined spending by Virginia ($96 million through last Sunday), Ohio ($93 million) and North Carolina ($70 million), CMAG estimates show.

Small interest groups are also getting into the mix. The American Energy Alliance will air $2 million worth of TV and radio ads in coal-country states through early November attacking Obama's energy policies, according to spokesman Benjamin Cole.

Many strategists expect the tone of many ads to change markedly during the final stretch as the campaigns shift from attacking each other to presenting a "closing argument" for their election. But that time has not quite arrived, as attack ads still dominate.

The Obama camp rolled out a pair of ads Friday attacking Romney for his stand on contraception services and his defense of paying a 14 percent tax rate on $20 million in personal income. "Lower tax rates for him than us," the spot says. "Is that the way to grow America?"

Romney, meanwhile, is bombarding battlegrounds with ads attacking Obama's economic policies. Restore Our Future is running $6 million worth of spots focused on unemployment in Florida, Iowa and Virginia.

"We're told we're going forward, even as we fall further behind," the ad's narrator says. "This is the new normal. This is President Obama's economy."

eggend@washpost.com

farnamt@washpost.com

LOAD-DATE: October 13, 2012

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone

PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper

Pinning down political facts

SECTION: EDITORIAL COPY; Pg. A13

LENGTH: 410 words

The Oct. 6 front-page article "Report deprives Romney of a magic number" unfortunately played into the apocryphal claim that President Obama promised that the unemployment rate would not go above 8 percent if his stimulus was put into place. He never made that promise.

The article gave short shrift to the disclaimers in Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein's economic report, where the 8 percent figure originated, stating simply that the report had "caveats." The article failed to note that the crucial caveats included, first, a warning that the data on which the report relied did not include the final quarter of George W. Bush's presidency, which was unavailable at the time, and, second, the awareness that the unknown data might significantly change the projections.

Furthermore, the article's assertion that the Obama team "had not understood" the economic debacle Bush left implies a misreading of the state of the economy. Obama's circle had not "understood" that sad legacy because it was unknowable, since the crucial data from that legacy did not yet exist.

Skeptics might ask themselves: If the Republicans actually had a video of Barack Obama promising that the unemployment rate would not exceed 8 percent, wouldn't they be plastering that video nonstop on commercials nationwide?

Steven Rebarber, Bethesda

l

Glenn Kessler's Oct. 7 Fact Checker column ["Is Obama correct in his assertion that tax cuts, 'trickle-down policies' led to the economic crisis?"] assessed two Obama campaign ads that slam "trickle-down policies" proposed by Mitt Romney as the same policies that led to the economic crisis. Since not enough facts are in the ads, Kessler researched, opined and inferred the meaning of words in the ads such as "led," "trickle-down," "crisis" and "policies."

Although I don't think Kessler reached unreasonable conclusions as to the meanings of these words, I disagree with some of them - particularly for "trickle-down policies," which I think include several policy sets that increase wealth and income disparity. His analysis followed such a tortured path, focusing on broad, ambiguous and even ideological terms, that he should have abandoned it as "too hard" before assigning three Pinocchios.

This is not to say that the ads' claims cannot be disputed, as they surely are by those from the opposite governing ideology. But the Fact Checker should stick to assessing stated facts that can be readily verified.

Jay Fadgen, Falls Church

LOAD-DATE: October 13, 2012

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

DISTRIBUTION: Every Zone

PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper

A Bounce for Romney, But Just How High?

BYLINE: By NATE SILVER

SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Politics; FIVETHIRTYEIGHT; Pg. 11

LENGTH: 2659 words

Polling since the debate in Denver last week has generally been very strong for Mitt Romney. But there have also been a couple of rays of hope for Democrats and President Obama.

One hypothesis is that Mr. Romney's debate bounce was initially very strong, but has since faded some. There is a case to be made for this - but Wednesday's polling made it weaker.

Although Mr. Romney's standing declined by two points in the Gallup national tracking poll, he improved slightly in four other tracking surveys, from Rasmussen Reports, Ipsos, Investors' Business Daily and the RAND Corporation. And the state polling data that came in on Wednesday was generally consistent with about a three-and-a-half-point bounce for Mr. Romney, similar to previous days.

There is some spotty evidence that Mr. Romney's bounce may have been as large as five or six points in polls conducted in the 48 hours after the debate, so perhaps the most recent data does reflect something of a comedown for him. But if his bounce started out at five or six points and has now settled in at three or four, that would still reflect an extremely profound swing in the race - consistent with the largest shifts produced by past presidential debates. We'll see what happens once the news cycle turns over, such as after Thursday's vice-presidential debate.

For the time being, however, Mr. Romney continues to rocket forward in our projections. The forecast model now gives him about a one-in-three chance of winning the Electoral College (more specifically, a 32.1 percent chance), his highest figure since Aug. 22 and more than double his chances from before the debate. Mr. Romney may have increased his chances of becoming president by 15 or 20 percent based on one night in Denver.The more troubling sign for Mr. Romney, however, is that although he's made gains, he does not seem to have taken the lead in very many state polls. That trend, if anything, has become more entrenched. Of the half-dozen or so polls of battleground states published on Wednesday, none showed Mr. Romney ahead; the best result he managed was a 48-48 tie in a Rasmussen Reports poll of New Hampshire.

(We ran the model on Wednesday before the latest polls from Marist College, The Philadelphia Inquirer, or The New York Times, Quinnipiac University and CBS News were published overnight, which were also suggestive of a narrow advantage for Mr. Obama in the majority of swing states.)

How to reconcile this against the fact that Mr. Romney is about tied - or perhaps even has a small lead - in the average of national polls right now?

From a forecasting standpoint, this is the question that the whole election may turn upon. There are basically four ways to explain the difference.

1) This is a statistical quirk that will work its way out of the system.2) Mr. Obama has some pronounced advantage in the Electoral College relative to his position in the popular vote.3) The state polls systematically overestimate Mr. Obama and underestimate Mr. Romney.4) The national polls systematically overestimate Mr. Romney and underestimate Mr. Obama.

Could State-National Differences Be a Statistical Fluke?

The first proposal - that this simply reflects statistical noise - may be part of the answer, but I don't know that it's a sufficient explanation on its own. Since the Denver debate, there have been on the order of 12,000 people surveyed in national polls, and a similar number in the battleground states. The theoretical margin of error on a 12,000-person sample is about 1.8 percent in reflecting the difference between the two candidates.

If it just so happens that the set of national polls have been a positive outlier for Mr. Romney and the state polls have been a negative outlier for him, then perhaps you can explain the whole of the discrepancy. But that explanation would be more compelling had these differences not also been apparent for most of the election cycle.

An Electoral College-Popular Vote Split?

The second answer is the most intuitively satisfying, and would make the boldest assertion: that in an election held today, Mr. Obama would be favored to win the Electoral College but would probably lose (or at best roughly tie) the popular vote. However, there are several powerful rebuttals to it.

First, splits between the Electoral College and the popular vote are historically very uncommon.

Second, the swing states are swing states for a reason: because they resemble (certainly collectively, if not also individually) the American electorate as a whole. There are a lot of voters in the nonbattleground states who are demographically similar to those in Ohio, Florida, Virginia or Colorado. (If Mr. Obama is performing well in Ohio, then it should figure that he's also performing well with Ohio-like voters in noncompetitive neighboring states like Indiana or Kentucky, for example.) The set of swing states is also quite geographically diverse, covering almost literally the four corners of the country.

Third, the campaigns have been roughly equal in their advertising spending this year. If one campaign had an especially heavy resource advantage in the swing states (as Mr. Obama may have had in 2008), then perhaps this explanation would make more sense.

Fourth, this hypothesis depends implicitly on the idea that Mr. Obama, if he is overperforming in the swing states, must also be underperforming in the other states. Although there hasn't been much polling outside the battleground states recently, the evidence from the polling before the debate was not very supportive of this idea. If anything, for example, Mr. Obama seemed to be performing comparatively well in deeply red states, seeing little drop-off from his 2008 results. Perhaps fresher evidence will lend more credibility to this hypothesis (one poll on Wednesday showed Mr. Obama's margin falling substantially in California, for instance). But it hasn't been that convincing up to this point in time.

None of this means that this case is completely without merit. Our forecast model does infer that Mr. Obama has a very slight Electoral College advantage. (As of Wednesday, it gave him a 67.9 percent chance of winning the Electoral College against a 66.7 percent chance of winning the popular vote.)

But some of our competitors are issuing forecasts suggestive of a very large difference between the Electoral College and the popular vote - to a degree that is frankly not credible, in my view. (We'll compare the FiveThirtyEight forecasts against some alternatives in a moment.)

Reasons to Prefer National Polls to State Polls

There are some reasons to prefer national polls to state polls. First, they probably come from slightly stronger polling firms on average and they often have larger sample sizes, although there are exceptions on either side.

Second, they're more straightforward to interpret - especially if you want to derive an estimate of how the national popular vote will break down. The alternative requires you to "add up" the polls from individual states, as well to estimate what share of the national turnout each state will represent.

Reasons to Prefer State Polls to National Polls

Our research suggests, however, that when the state polls and the national polls seem to tell a different story about the state of the campaign, the state polls sometimes (not always, by any means) get it right.

One case in point: national polls on the eve of the 2000 election were consistent with about a three-point lead for George W. Bush. But the collective evidence from state polling was suggestive of a nearly tied race. In fact, the conventional wisdom at that time was that Mr. Bush might win the popular vote but lose the Electoral College - exactly the opposite of the outcome that occurred.

The state polling generally told the more accurate story, however, describing a tossup race, rather than one favoring Mr. Bush.

Similarly, in 1996, most national polls showed Bill Clinton winning by double-digits, while battleground state polls seemed to suggest that he would win by a smaller amount. Mr. Clinton's actual margin of victory was eight and a half percentage points, more in line with the state polling.

What advantages do state polls have? One is just that there are more of them. No, there aren't more Virginia polls than there are national polls. But among Virginia and Ohio and Colorado and the other 47 states, there are quite a lot more. So even if the typical state poll is slightly less accurate the typical national poll, the collective sum of state polls may be more worthwhile than the collective sum of national polls.

Also, the state polls come from a more diverse set of polling firms, and may provide for a greater degree of independence.

What do I mean by "independence"? Here's a dirty little secret: pollsters herd. Or to put it less politely: it's probable that some polling firms, especially those that use less rigorous methodologies, cheat off the stronger ones - seeing what the consensus results are before weighing in on their own.

One piece of evidence for this comes from a paper by the political scientists Joshua Clinton and Steve Rogers, who analyzed polling in the Republican primaries this year. They found that when a low-quality pollster was the first one to poll a state, their results were quite poor. But they did as well as any others once there were high-quality polls already released in the state - possibly implying that the low-quality pollsters were tweaking their assumptions to match the better ones.

My own research is suggestive of a similar phenomenon. I've found that the more polls there are of a state, the narrower the spread between them - in a way that is inconsistent with normal statistical variance. Once there is a consensus established in a state, the pollsters may have an incentive to be in line with it. That may make the individual poll more accurate - but reduce the value of aggregating or averaging polls since the "wisdom of crowds" principle is strongest when individual members of the crowd are behaving independently. Otherwise, it becomes more likely that everyone will miss in the same direction.

Even high-quality polling firms sometimes feel compelled to change their methods if they are out-of-step with the consensus. Gallup announced a set of changes to its methodology on Wednesday, for example. Although the changes are defensible on a theoretical basis (and although it's much better to disclose the changes than not to do so), it's awfully late in the game to be doing that, and makes it harder to compare recent Gallup results to past ones.

(Whether you like the FiveThirtyEight forecast model or not, one advantage it has is that we don't change the rules as we go along. The forecasts that you see today are from a program that we designed in the spring, before knowing how the election would play out.)

The potential advantage of state polls is that, to the extent that the pollsters herd, they're herding relative to 50 state-by-state averages rather than just one national average. So you aren't putting quite so many eggs into one basket.

Another advantage of relying more on state polls is that if you fail, you will tend to fail well. That is, if there really is a big difference between the Electoral College and the popular vote, the state polls will at least get the Electoral College winner right - and that's what determines who occupies the White House.

A Comparison of State-by-State Forecasts

Still, the case is not a slam-dunk. So what the FiveThirtyEight forecasts do is to adjust the state polls in one direction, and the national polls in the opposite one, such that they match.

(The adjustment does not necessarily cause them to meet exactly in the middle. The degree to which the program weights national polls and state polls depends on the overall volume of polling in each realm. Right now, the state polls are abundant enough that they receive somewhat more weight over all.)

So if you compare our forecasts to those of our competitors, what you'll generally find is that we are higher than the other methods on our estimate of Mr. Obama's standing in the national popular vote, but lower than the others in the individual states.

In the chart below, I've compared the results from the FiveThirtyEight "now-cast" as of Wednesday night to those issued by three other polling sites: Real Clear Politics, HuffPost Pollster and Talking Points Memo's PollTracker. The results cover the 11 battleground states that the campaigns have made a material amount of advertising expenditures in, along with each site's estimate of the national popular vote.

On average among the 11 battleground states, we show Mr. Obama with a 2.3 percentage point lead, or 1.9 percentage points as weighted by each state's turnout in 2008. Among the four methods, we have the worst figure for Mr. Obama in Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Wisconsin, and the highest in none. Our average result for Mr. Obama among the 11 states is also the lowest of the four systems, although tied with RealClearPolitics if weighted by turnout.

The flip-side is that our estimate of Mr. Obama's national popular vote is the highest of the four systems: the "now-cast" shows him one and a half percentage points ahead nationally, while HuffPost Pollster shows a tie, and the other two methods have Mr. Romney slightly ahead.

Thus, we perceive only about a half-point difference between Mr. Obama's performance in the battlegrounds and his national figures. This is similar to the actual results from 2008, when Mr. Obama won the 11 battleground states by an average of 7.7 percentage points (weighted by turnout) and the national popular vote by 7.3 points.

By contrast, Talking Points Memo has Mr. Obama three points ahead on average in the battlegrounds, but three points behind in the national popular vote - a six-point spread. Real Clear Politics shows about a three -and-a-half-point gap, while HuffPost Pollster, whose methodology is the most similar to FiveThirtyEight, has a two-point difference.

A two-point difference is within the realm of possibility, although our model would require a bit more evidence to support a difference that large (specifically, poor polling for Mr. Obama in non-battleground states relative to his polling in swing states).

But there's just no way that Mr. Obama would be even-money in the Electoral College if he were trailing in the national popular vote by four to six points.

All of this is a very long-winded way of answering the question in the headline: is Mr. Romney ahead right now? None of the systems that rely on state-level polling say that he's ahead in the Electoral College right now, although the FiveThirtyEight models perceive a slightly smaller Electoral College gap between Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama than some of the other systems.

The difference is that we, and HuffPost Pollster, are looking at the Electoral College and the popular vote in a holistic way. The evidence is ambiguous enough that it's hard to know for sure, but the fact that Mr. Obama appears to hold a lead in the Electoral College is reason to be suspicious that Mr. Romney leads in the popular vote.

But here's another way to think about the issue, returning to the competing hypothesis that we articulated earlier. If the national polls are right and the state polls are wrong, then Mr. Romney might be favored right now. If the state polls are right and the national polls are wrong, then Mr. Obama is ahead. And if you take them both very literally - meaning that Mr. Obama is ahead in the Electoral College but behind in the popular vote - then he'd win another term, after a very long election night.

Two of the three hypothesis yield an Obama win. It's something of a coincidence that our model now shows Mr. Obama with almost exactly a 2-in-3 chance of winning (as do Vegas betting lines), but it isn't the worst way to think about the election.

This is a more complete version of the story than the one that appeared in print.

URL: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/oct-10-is-romney-leading-right-now/

LOAD-DATE: October 12, 2012

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper

Romney's Pledge Puts Focus on Public TV

BYLINE: By BRIAN STELTER and ELIZABETH JENSEN

SECTION: Section A; Column 0; Politics; Pg. 11

LENGTH: 978 words

It has been a strange week for public television executives. Meetings have been postponed. Trips have been canceled. And conversations have turned in urgency to, of all things, Big Bird.

The turn of events can be traced to Mitt Romney's pledge at the Oct. 3 presidential debate to ''stop the subsidy to PBS,'' and the subsequent political jousting between him and President Obama over the fate of the iconic ''Sesame Street'' character. The give-and-take has brought new attention to the public financing of television and radio and has elevated it to an election issue, much to the dismay of PBS and local stations that say they are nonpartisan and would like to stay that way.

The public broadcasting budget has long been a target of Republicans in Congress, most famously when Newt Gingrich called for the privatization of PBS in 1994. Paula A. Kerger, the PBS chief executive, however, said she could not recall a time when a presidential candidate had opposed the financing in so public a forum. ''We sprang into action quickly,'' said Ms. Kerger, who ''dropped everything'' the day after the debate to answer questions from the news media.

Both the Obama and Romney campaigns see political advantages in the conversation over whether the government should help pay for radio and television programming. It allows Mr. Romney to portray himself as a budget-cutter and appeal to conservatives who believe that public media programs have a liberal bias; it allows Mr. Obama, in turn, to mock Mr. Romney's proposal and appeal to voters who oppose cuts to public broadcasting.

The public television executives caught in the middle say the issue is drawing far more attention than it truly merits.

''We would very much like to be out of the picture as soon as possible,'' said Patrick Butler, the head of the main lobbying group for public television stations. ''We think there are more important issues for presidential candidates to talk about than our little funding issue here.''

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting received $445 million from the government this year, about two-thirds of which was granted directly to local television and radio stations. The rest was spent on grants for programming and administrative costs. The total amount is about one one-hundredth of 1 percent of the federal budget, contradicting the widely held belief that public broadcasting represents 1 percent or more.

The campaign trail comments about public broadcasting this week have made ''folks more aware of how small the number is and how deep the appreciation of public television is,'' said Rich Homberg, president and general manager of Detroit Public Television, where federal funds account for about 7 percent of revenues.

Several station managers said they had been struck by the outpouring of support on social media Web sites and in phone calls from viewers.

A sarcastic ad by the Obama campaign on Tuesday that mocked Mr. Romney's mention of Big Bird gained more than 2.1 million views on YouTube as of Thursday evening, more than any single Romney ad on YouTube to date. After its release, the Republican National Committee asserted that Mr. Obama had made '' 'Sesame Street' characters the cornerstone of his campaign.''

The back-and-forth may foreshadow a Congressional fight over financing for public broadcasting next year. Stations have been girding for such a fight by generating an online campaign, 170 Million Americans for Public Broadcasting, a reference to the combined monthly reach of all the stations.

Nationwide, the $445 million in federal funds accounts for about 15 percent of public broadcasters' overall revenue, with donations and other sources making up the rest. Smaller television and radio stations depend more heavily on the subsidies; a report commissioned by Congress this year found that the elimination of federal funds would leave 54 public television stations and 76 public radio stations, most in rural areas, ''at high risk of no longer being able to sustain operations.''

While some viewers could rely on the Web in place of those stations, PBS says it serves many poor and rural households that cannot afford broadband Internet connections or cable television.

Peter Morrill, the general manager of Idaho Public Television, said the $1 million he receives annually, out of a $6 million budget, is ''absolutely critical to our ability to provide service to a very rural state.''

Mr. Romney, in an interview with The Des Moines Register on Tuesday, said he enjoyed PBS, singling out the anthology program ''Masterpiece,'' which he called by its former name, ''Masterpiece Theater.'' But he said the system's programming ''will do just fine whether or not there's federal subsidy'' and brought up Big Bird's home: ''The people from 'Sesame Street' have made it clear that Big Bird is quite profitable, doesn't need the government subsidy.''

''Sesame Street'' is produced by Sesame Workshop, a nonprofit. It receives money from several government agencies for its international production and domestic outreach work. But ''Sesame Street'' directly receives only $4 million a year from PBS. The group returns about $2.5 million to PBS through an arrangement that shares revenues from merchandising and other income streams, making the net cost to taxpayers $1.5 million.

But Sesame Workshop also depends on PBS for distribution, and PBS in turn depends on federal funds to keep local stations running. ''Let's have a conversation about that,'' said Melvin Ming, the Sesame Workshop chief executive.

With Big Bird still in the news last Saturday, Mr. Ming canceled a long-planned overseas trip. He sensed that Big Bird was unlikely to fade into obscurity this month, with two more presidential debates to go, not to mention Halloween. This month, Google searches for ''Big Bird costume'' soared to their highest monthly level in at least eight years.

URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/us/politics/romneys-pledge-puts-public-television-in-spotlight.html

LOAD-DATE: October 12, 2012

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

GRAPHIC: PHOTO: A protester dressed as Big Bird in Delaware, Ohio. At the Oct. 3 debate against President Obama, Mitt Romney vowed to ''stop the subsidy to PBS.'' (PHOTOGRAPH BY JOSH HANER/THE NEW YORK TIMES)

PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper

JPMorgan Beats Expectations

BYLINE: WILLIAM ALDEN

SECTION: BUSINESS

LENGTH: 1555 words

HIGHLIGHT: JPMorgan Chase kicked off bank earnings season, announcing a 34 percent rise in profit. | Paul E. Singer, the head of Elliott Management, "may have met his match." | When Timothy F. Geithner wants insight into Wall Street, he often turns to the head of BlackRock. | Workday is set to begin trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

JPMORGAN PROFIT RISES 34% | Bank earnings kick off Friday morning with JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo. With the broad economy showing signs of recovery, we'll soon find out whether banks are feeling beneficial effects. Investors can expect the usual buzzwords - uncertainty, weak global economic conditions, the cost of new regulation - as banks explain their results.

Big consumer banks stand to benefit as the housing market gradually improves from the financial crisis. A surge in mortgage refinancing is helping the banks' bread-and-butter lending business, making up for weakness in other areas, writes DealBook's Peter Eavis. Government assistance for homeowners, combined with low interest rates, is producing a "windfall for banks," Mr. Eavis says.

Indeed, JPMorgan Chase said on Friday it originated $47 billion worth of mortgages in the third quarter, an increase of 29 percent from last year. Over all, the bank - which surpassed expectations - earned $5.7 billion, compared with $4.3 billion a year earlier. "We believe the housing market has turned the corner," said Jamie Dimon, the chief executive. JPMorgan on Friday also gave an update on its disastrous London whale trade, saying it amounted to a "modest loss" in the quarter. The bank is holding its conference call at 8:30 a.m.

Wells Fargo is up next, reporting its third-quarter results at 8 a.m. Analysts expect the bank to earn 87 cents a share, compared with 72 cents a share last year.

CLASH OF THE VULTURES |
Paul E. Singer, the head of Elliott Management, is used to butting heads with corporate boards and political leaders, but the hedge fund manager "may have met his match" in David Martinez, a secretive Mexican financier who is opposing him in a struggle over Vitro, a troubled glass company, writes DealBook's Azam Ahmed. "Elliott and allied investors contend that Mr. Martinez helped the Mexican company muscle investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars through financial sleight of hand." The case could have broader implications for international investing. Vitro's bankruptcy plan, which imposes losses on bondholders rather than shareholders, "has sent ripples through the Mexican debt market," Mr. Ahmed says.

In another battle, Mr. Singer seems to have the edge. A court in Ghana ruled that his hedge fund can hold on to the Argentine navy ship that it recently seized as part of an effort to collect on Argentine government debt.

GEITHNER PHONES A FRIEND | When Timothy F. Geithner wants insight into Wall Street, the Treasury secretary often turns to Laurence D. Fink, the head of BlackRock. "The two men spoke on at least 49 separate occasions, an average of about once every 11 days" during an 18-month period, according to The Financial Times.

ON THE AGENDA | Workday is set to begin trading on the New York Stock Exchange, after pricing its I.P.O. above the expected range. A human resources software company, Workday sold shares at $28 apiece, for a valuation of nearly $4.5 billion. Stephen A. Wynn of Wynn Resorts is appearing on CNBC at 7:40 a.m. Timothy J. Sloan, Wells Fargo's chief financial officer, is on CNBC at 3:10 p.m.

New rules for certain derivatives go into effect today, a change that one columnist said was "as important as when the 1930s securities laws went into force." The Reuters/University of Michigan consumer sentiment index for October is released at 9:55 a.m.

TPG ABANDONS BILLABONG BID |
The second time isn't sweeter for TPG. The buyout firm walked away from a $714 million offer for Billabong International, marking its second failed attempt this year to take over the Australian surf wear company. Billabong's shares fell as much as 19 percent in Sydney trading on Friday, reaching a record low.

| Contact: @williamalden | E-mail

Sign up for the DealBook Newsletter, delivered every morning and afternoon.

Mergers & Acquisitions »

Sprint Says It Is in Negotiations With SoftBank of Japan | The deal would give Sprint, the struggling American cellphone service provider, a backer able to help finance its latest turnaround.
DealBook »

Larry Ellison Is Said to Consider Anschutz Entertainment | Reuters reports that the billionaire is "interested in a potential bid" for the sports and entertainment company, which could fetch around $10 billion.
REUTERS

Icahn Bids to Take Control of Oshkosh Truck | Carl C. Icahn escalated his proxy fight with the vehicle maker Oshkosh Corporation on Thursday by offering to take over the company for $32.50 a share, or about $3 billion.
DealBook »

The Fallout From the Failed Aerospace Deal | After talks between EADS and BAE collapsed, the chief executive of EADS now "risks further straining relations" with the German government, Bloomberg News writes.
BLOOMBERG NEWS

Debt Investors Consider Options for AMR | As the parent company of American Airlines works through bankruptcy, a group of bondholders is said to be "open to a merger with US Airways Group," The Wall Street Journal reports.
WALL STREET JOURNAL

Owners of Champion Technologies Said to Pursue a Sale | The family that controls the chemical maker is said to be seeking $2 billion in a sale, Bloomberg News reports.

BLOOMBERG NEWS

INVESTMENT BANKING »

Morgan Stanley E-Mails Reveal Doubts About a Deal | Executives at Morgan Stanley warned about the stability of a structured investment vehicle that later went bad, "according to e-mails cited by investors who were sold $100 million of the fund's notes just days after the warning," Bloomberg News reports.
BLOOMBERG NEWS

Blankfein Adds to Warnings About 'Fiscal Cliff' | Lloyd C. Blankfein, the chief of Goldman Sachs, warned in an interview on Thursday on CNBC that the fiscal cliff threatens to derail the economic recovery.
DealBook »

More Support to Limit Bank Size | James Bullard, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, supported an argument made by the Fed governor Daniel K. Tarullo.
BLOOMBERG NEWS

Which Banks Would Be Affected? | After a Fed official said Congress should consider limiting the size of big banks, The Wall Street Journal shows which firms might be affected by such a plan. The results are not surprising.
WALL STREET JOURNAL

Chinese Banks Said to Resist Lowering Borrowing Rates |
BLOOMBERG NEWS

PRIVATE EQUITY »

Bain Capital to Buy Call Center Business for $1.3 Billion | The private equity firm co-founded by the United States presidential candidate Mitt Romney has agreed to buy the call center unit of the European telecoms giant Telefónica for $1.3 billion.
DealBook »

Carlyle Granted More Time for Chemring Deal |
REUTERS

HEDGE FUNDS »

Third Point Gets Approval to Buy Stake in Murphy Oil |
REUTERS

Prince Dines With Hedge Fund Women | Prince William of Britain visited a gala for the charity 100 Women in Hedge Funds Philanthropic Initiatives, according to USA Today.
USA TODAY

Asia-Focused Fund Isolates Certain Assets | Senrigan Capital, which is backed by the Blackstone Group, has created a separate vehicle for certain assets that sustained losses, Reuters reports.
REUTERS

I.P.O./OFFERINGS »

Pondering Zynga's Fate | With Zynga's stock trading at low values, there's an argument to be made that Facebook should consider buying the company, The Wall Street Journal writes.
WALL STREET JOURNAL

Realogy Surges in Trading Debut | Realogy Holdings and Shutterstock rose in their first hours on the public market, defying a broader sense of uncertainty surrounding new listings.
DealBook »

VENTURE CAPITAL »

How the Presidential Candidates Would Help Start-Ups | President Obama and Mitt Romney responded to questions from NYCTechMeetUp, a group representing technology industry people in New York.
NEW YORK TIMES BITS

Twitter's Urban Edge? | According to Dick Costolo, Twitter's chief executive, the company is "gritty like the city."
ALLTHINGSD

Solar Panel Industry Looks to Limit Imports | The New York Times writes: "The solar panel manufacturing industry in the United States and Europe has begun a volley of trade cases against imports, following the same track as the steel industry before it - and for many of the same reasons."
NEW YORK TIMES

LEGAL/REGULATORY »

Former Guggenheim Trader Accused of Hiding a Loss | A former managing director at Guggenheim Securities, Alexander Rekeda, who was accused of concealing a trading loss on a collateralized loan obligation, was fined and suspended on Thursday by regulators.
WALL STREET JOURNAL

Taking Stock of Dodd-Frank | Bloomberg Businessweek writes that Dodd-Frank has "worked, but it's also left holes some argue have made the system more vulnerable."
BLOOMBERG BUSINESSWEEK

Retailers Challenge Settlement With Card Companies | After reaching a $6 billion settlement with Visa and MasterCard, more than half of the retailers and trade groups that filed the underlying lawsuit say they have problems with the deal, The Wall Street Journal reports.
WALL STREET JOURNAL

Ex-Goldman Programmer Seeks Dismissal of Charges | A lawyer for Sergey Aleynikov argued that his client could not be tried a second time under similar charges, The Wall Street Journal reports.
WALL STREET JOURNAL

First Black Member of Fed Board Dies | Andrew F. Brimmer, who "led efforts to to reverse the country's balance-of-payments deficit," died at 86, The New York Times writes.
NEW YORK TIMES

Sign up for the DealBook Newsletter, delivered every morning and afternoon.

LOAD-DATE: October 15, 2012

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

DOCUMENT-TYPE: News

PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog

Ryan Joins Criticism of Administration on Libya Attack

BYLINE: TRIP GABRIEL

SECTION: US; politics

LENGTH: 631 words

HIGHLIGHT: Representative Paul D. Ryan also condemned the possibility of ending production of M1 tanks at a plant in Ohio.

LANCASTER, Ohio -- Representative Paul D. Ryan joined Mitt Romney in criticizing President Obama on Friday over the attack in Benghazi, Libya, adding another turn of the screw to an indictment of the administration's evolving explanation of events.

"First they blame a YouTube video and a nonexistent riot,'' Mr. Ryan told a throng of supporters here, at his first public appearance since his debate with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. on Thursday night in Danville, Ky. "Then when the country's getting upset about it, they blame Romney and Ryan for getting people upset about it.''

"They keep changing their story,'' he added. "This is not what leadership looks like.''

Earlier in the day, Mr. Romney attacked Mr. Biden for asserting in the debate that the administration never received requests for greater security at the diplomatic outpost where Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed. Two security officials testified before a House committee on Wednesday that they asked for more officers, but were turned down by the State Department.

Pressed to explain the discrepancy, Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said on Friday that the State Department handled security at its outposts and that Mr. Biden meant only that he and Mr. Obama had not known of the requests.

"We need clarity, not confusion,'' Mr. Ryan said here. "We need accountability and no more excuses. This tragedy would be troubling in and of itself, and tragic of itself, but unfortunately what we are witnessing when we turn on our TVs on a daily basis is the unraveling of the Obama foreign policy.''

Mr. Ryan, who appeared on an outdoor stage in the center of town with Mr. Romney at his side, linked international events to the most local of interests, seizing on another comment of Mr. Biden's in the debate that the Pentagon sought to make a transition to a leaner, smaller Army.

"We don't need more M1 tanks, what we need is more U.A.V's," Mr. Biden said, referring to unmanned aerial vehicles, better known as drones.

As it happens, production of the M1 tank is based in Lima, Ohio, and Mr. Ryan raised the threat of job losses here in what may be the hardest-fought of all battleground states.

"When you say it's O.K. to impose these devastating cuts in our military or we don't need any more Lima-built M1 tanks,'' Mr. Ryan said, "what we are doing is we're projecting weakness.''

The Romney-Ryan campaign also released a radio ad in central and northwestern Ohio accusing Mr. Biden of wanting "to take away one of the most vital weapons in our arsenal -- made right here in Ohio.''

And Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, an adviser to Mr. Romney who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement that the M1 supported 800 jobs in Lima.

Mr. Romney will spend another full day campaigning in Ohio on Saturday. He worked a local angle of his own when he spoke after Mr. Ryan. He told the large crowd of an unusual connection he had to Lancaster.

"My very first assignment at my first job was to come to Lancaster. I'm serious," he said. "And try to do a little work at a little company called Anchor Hocking,'' a maker of glass tableware. Mr. Romney was apparently referring to his work fresh out of Harvard Business School working for the Boston Consulting Company.

He recalled "standing next to those big glass furnaces" and learning about "triple gob machines" at the glass works.

"It's good to be back,'' he said, cognizant that all politics - tanks or casserole dishes - is local.

LOAD-DATE: October 15, 2012

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

DOCUMENT-TYPE: News

PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog

Funding Seasame Street vs. Wall Street

SECTION: EDIT; Pg. 11A

LENGTH: 192 words

During first presidential debate, Mitt Romney stated he loved Big Bird, but would cut funding to PBS .

Let's do the math -- $26 million for PBS and $650 billion for defense. Yup, that cut to PBS will really make a difference in the budget. To hell with educational programming for kids. We need more guns and bombs.

Chris Sadler

There is much about PBS that is exceptional. However in numerous ways it represents a very singular mindset of liberal ideology. This can be seen (when viewed objectively) in the news and other programs. PBS is no longer a non-commercial enterprise. Aside from intense fundraising, PBS has had commercial sponsors for years. Is that fair to other broadcast venues?

Harry Martin

I wish Obama would talk about securing our embassies around the world as much as he talks about securing Sesame Street.

@CharlieDaniels

As a PBS fan, I still say we should not borrow from China to fund PBS.

@bibliomama5

Presidential job approval rating: 30%. Sesame Street is losing to Main Street.

@souperfan2012

Again I say if people like PBS enough to watch the programs, they will donate to keep it going. I do. Why shouldn't everyone else?

@Parlay1992

LOAD-DATE: October 12, 2012

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

GRAPHIC: graphic Matt Sayles, AP

PUBLICATION-TYPE: NEWSPAPER

Ad watch: Obama targets Romney on birth control

BYLINE: Rachel Weiner

LENGTH: 103 words

Obama for America, "Decision"

What it says: "When it comes to protecting your access to birth control, and the basic women's health care services Planned Parenthood provides, one thing we must remember is this. Mitt Romney: 'I'll cut off funding to Planned Parenthood.' "

What it means: President Obama is strengthening his hold on female voters - particularly unmarried women, who polling suggests were unimpressed by his debate performance - by painting Romney as anti-contraception.

Who will see it: Voters in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia

LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog

Why Senate debates matter - and our latest rankings!

BYLINE: Sean Sullivan

LENGTH: 1450 words

Senate candidates are debating one another with increasing frequency as Election Day nears, giving voters more chances to compare their options alongside one another. While the debates have proven unique opportunities for candidates to pitch their politics, policies, and personalities, the set-tos haven't dramatically shifted momentum to one side or the other.

To explore why, let's start in Massachusetts, home to the cycle's highest-profile Senate race. Sen. Scott Brown (R) and Elizabeth Warren (D) have debated three times and will meet once more on Oct. 30. Polling shows that most voters are tuning in. But neither Brown nor Warren has decisively used the debates to their advantage.

More than six-in-ten (61 percent) of those likeliest to vote had seen or heard at least one of the first two debates, according Western New England University survey conducted late last month and early this month. Among those voters, about as many said they were more likely to vote for Brown (30 percent) as for Warren (31 percent), based on the debate they most recently saw or heard. Thirty-seven percent said the debate didn't make a difference.

While the first two Brown-Warren sessions were filled with heated exchanges and one-liners, neither candidate committed a huge gaffe; nor did either candidate dominate the other. So it's not difficult to see why the first couple of meetings turned out as draws.

But even another debate in which there was a memorable misstep wasn't an end-all-be-all campaign moment.

In Virginia, former Democratic National Committee chairman Tim Kaine stole the spotlight at his Sept. 20 debate against former senator George Allen (R), but not the way his campaign wanted to see him do it. Kaine's remark that he would be open to "some minimum tax level for everyone" forced a post-debate explanation and became fodder for an Allen attack ad five days later.

On its own, the debate hasn't appeared enough to propel Allen into the lead, however. The Virginia race remains close - and has been all cycle - with most polls after the Sept. 20 meeting showing Kaine leading Allen by single digits.

On Thursday, Senate candidates debated in Nevada, New Mexico and Connecticut (The Hotline rounds up the coverage here). There were no real earth-shattering moments at any of the three.

At the presidential level, Mitt Romney's debate performance last week was widely praised, and Republicans moved quickly to cast the campaign anew in the days that followed. Democrats, meanwhile, were forced to explain the president's performance. That's not something we're likely to see at the Senate level, even after debates as one-sided as the first Romney-Obama meeting.

Why? For one thing, presidential debates simply attract more attention and generate more media coverage. The pomp and circumstance not to mention the audience surrounding a presidential debate could never be matched at the Senate level.

The constant, from-all-angles post-game dissection that tends to shape the aftermath of presidential debate simply isn't often found in state races. Local networks and papers cover the Senate debates, often with great breadth and depth, but it's a matter of 10 stories versus hundreds; two or three minutes in a local news broadcast versus days worth of national coverage on cable.

All that said, statewide debates shouldn't be dismissed as mere background noise in Senate landscape. Warren and Brown have drawn some clear contrasts between one another on policy and personality. In Wednesday night's debate between Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and former surgeon general Richard Carmona (D), the candidates made some actual news - Carmona on health care and Flake on signing pledges.

Benign as most statewide debates are, each one carries the risk of blowing up into a national story. Case in point: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's (R) (extended) awkward silence at a 2010 debate.

And now, to our rankings of the 10 Senate seats most likely to change parties in 25 days. As always, these races are rated from most likely to flip - No. 1 - to least likely - No. 10.)

To the Line!

10. Connecticut (Democratic-controlled): The latest Quinnipiac poll showed Republican Linda McMahon and Rep. Chris Murphy (D) running about even. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's air offensive has had time to marinate since we last ranked the Senate races, underscoring the competitiveness of this race. At the same time, it's bad news for McMahon that she has to contend against a new foe on the airwaves. To be clear, this race remains a climb for Republicans (Obama led Romney by 12 points in the Quinnipiac poll, meaning McMahon might have to outrun the top of the ticket by 15 points) but its not settled yet. (Previous ranking: 10)

9. Indiana (Republican-controlled): Rep. Joe Donnelly (D) has done exactly what national Democrats have asked for - keep this contest within range for the final stretch run. A bipartisan survey released last last month showed the race is about even, and Mourdock's partisan posture during the primary isn't helping him these days. Right now, he could use a hand from the man he defeated - Sen. Richard Lugar (R). But he's not going to get one, since Lugar's shut the door on the possibility of stumping with his onetime opponent. (Previous ranking: 9)

8. Nevada (R): A Suffolk University poll released Thursday showed Sen. Dean Heller (R) with a small lead over Rep. Shelley Berkley (D). Overall, this race remains very tight. Can Heller run ahead of Romney in Nevada? That's the question for Republicans, as the Suffolk poll showed the Republican presidential nominee trailing Obama by a slim margin. (Previous ranking: 8)

7. Virginia (D): Despite Kaine's rough debate against Allen on Sept. 20, most recent polls show the Democrat with a single-digit lead over Allen. Two different polls released Thursday told two different stories, but Kaine can't be disappointed about his showing in either. (Previous ranking: 6)

6. Wisconsin (D): Democrats really took advantage of the three weeks after the mid-August primary, which left onetime frontrunning former governor Tommy Thompson (R) bruised and in need of financial reinforcements. They pounced on the airwaves, boosting Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D) against the well-known Republican. Now, the race looks about even with 3 and a half weeks to go. (Previous ranking: 5)

5. Massachusetts (R): Warren was largely on offense at Wednesday night's debate. More notably, neither Brown nor the moderator raised the issue of her Native American heritage, which could be fading as a focal point in the contest, at least for now. Both candidates have begun attacking each other over the airwaves in earnest, and the net result has been polls that have mainly showed Warren with a slight advantage. (Previous ranking: 7)

4. Montana (D): Could a race be more even? All cycle long, poll after poll has showed Sen. Jon Tester (D) and Rep. Denny Rehberg (R) in a tie. Tester is facing tougher odds compared to other Class of 2006 Democrats, like Sens. Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio), but he's hanging tough in a state where Romney is the odds-on favorite at the top of the ballot. (Previous ranking: 4)

3. North Dakota (D): Mason-Dixon found this race to be deadlocked at 47 percent earlier this month. Heidi Heitkamp (D) has proven to be a more than capable contender against Rep. Rick Berg (R) in this increasingly Republican state. National Republicans' move to reinforce the effort in North Dakota late in the summer underscores how crucial a pickup opportunity this is for the GOP in the race for the majority. (Previous ranking: 3)

2. Maine (R): Since our last round of rankings, the Senate Democratic campaign arm has joined its GOP counterpart on the airwaves in this race. First, Republicans slammed frontrunning independent former governor Angus King. Then, Democrats responded to ding Republican nominee Charlie Summers. The real question here might be how much support Democrat Cynthia Dill can get (and how much Republicans will try to elevate her down the stretch). King is still in the driver's seat here, but his ride has grown bumpier. The increased national money this race has received has prompted us to move this from No.1 to No. 2. (Previous ranking: 1)

1. Nebraska (D): Let the speculation commence about what type of senator Deb Fischer (R) will be. Democrats' recruitment of Bob Kerrey was the best they could have hoped for when Sen. Ben Nelson (D) announced his retirement. But the former governor and senator has been no match for Fischer in this red state. (Previous ranking: 2)

LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog

Ad watch: Obama goes after Romney's taxes again

BYLINE: Rachel Weiner

LENGTH: 77 words

Obama for America, "Economic Growth"

What it says: "Lower tax rates for him ... than us. Is that the way to grow America?"

What it means: President Obama appears to be trying to blunt GOP momentum using a strategy that's been successful in the past - attacking Mitt Romney's wealth and low tax rate.

Who will see it: The ad will air in Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina, Nevada, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin.

LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog

The Big Bird counterattack

BYLINE: Charles Krauthammer

SECTION: Editorial; Pg. A21

LENGTH: 750 words

No mystery about the trajectory of this race. It was static for months as President Obama held a marginal lead. Then came the conventions. The Republicans squandered Tampa; the Democrats got a 3- to 4-point bounce out of Charlotte.

And kept it. Until the first debate. In 90 minutes, Mitt Romney wiped out the bump - and maybe more.

Democrats are shellshocked and left searching for excuses. Start with scapegoats: the hapless John Kerry, Obama's sparring partner in the practice debates, for going too soft on the boss; then the debate moderator for not exerting enough control.

The Obama campaign's plea that the commander in chief could find no shelter under Jim Lehrer's desk did not exactly bolster Obama's standing. Moreover, the moderator's job is not to control the flow of argument, but to simply enforce an even time split.

Lehrer did. In fact, Obama took more time than Romney - 41 / 2 minutes more - while actually speaking 500 fewer words. Romney knew what he thought and said it. Obama kept looking around hoping for the words to come to him. They didn't.

After the scapegoats came the excuses.

l Obama had a bad night. He was off his game.

Nonsense. This isObama's game. Great at delivering telepromptered addresses to adoring Germans and swooning students. But he's not very good on his feet.

His problem is that he doesn't think so. He not only believes his own press, he believes his own mythology. He actually said (in 2007): "I think that I'm a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And . . . I'm a better political director than my political director."

Obama is a man of considerable intelligence. But he's not half as transcendently smart as he thinks he is.

He needs a servant in his chariot reminding him that he's not an immortal. Of course, after the debate the entire Democratic Party told him he's a dud. Wrong again. He's neither lord nor commoner. He's just an above-average politician who needs a very good night in one of the next two debates.

l He was weighed down by the burdens of office.

Ah yes, the burdens of office. Like going on "The View" while meeting with not a single foreign leader at the United Nations. Like flying to a Vegas campaign rally the day after a U.S. consulate is sacked and the ambassador murdered. Like rushing off to New York for a night with Jay-Z and Beyonce.

Rocky Mountain altitude is a better excuse than that. (Thank you, Al Gore.)

l Reductionism.

Stephanie Cutter and David Axelrod both said (amazing coincidence) that Romney won on "style points."

So, the most charismatic politician since Pierre Elliot Trudeau was beaten by an android - on style? I concede that Obama's reaction shots were awful. But he lost on radio too. And in print. Read the transcript. This wasn't about appearances. Romney didn't win on style. He won on an avalanche of substance, on a complete takedown of six months of Obama portraying Romney as enemy of the middle class, friend and footman of the rich.

That was the heart of the Obama campaign. After all, with crushing debt, chronically high unemployment and the worst economic recovery since World War II, Obama can't run on stewardship. Nor on the future. He has no serious agenda. Nothing on entitlements, nothing on tax reform, nothing on debt, nothing on the fiscal cliff.

So when Romney completely deflated that six-month "kill Romney" strategy - by looking reasonable, responsible, authoritative in demonstrating how his policies would help the middle class by stimulating economic growth - what did Obama have left?

Big Bird. The stupidest ad in memory. Has any president ever run an ad so small and trivial? After an unprecedented shellacking in a debate about very large issues, this is his response?

The Middle East is ablaze, the country drowning in debt, the fiscal cliff looming - and Obama's great pitch is that only he can save the $130 million enterprise that is the Sesame Workshop?

An inspiring second-term agenda: subsidies for Big Bird and free contraceptives for Sandra Fluke.

Obama has two debates to come up with something better. If he can't, he will double down on his "Romney the menace" line. It might still work. But a word of advice: Your administration having prevaricated unceasingly - and scandalously - about the massacre in Benghazi, I'd be cautious about the "he's a liar" line of attack.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

LOAD-DATE: October 12, 2012

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Publication

A complete guide to the deluge of campaign ads;
We rate five of the most widely seen ads from each campaign.

BYLINE: Glenn Kessler

LENGTH: 1280 words

Pity the poor voter in a swing state in the final weeks of this campaign. Whenever you turn on the television, there is yet another campaign ad from either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney - and most of the time they are bashing the other guy.

We have reviewed and rated many of these ads over the past months, but as the ad spending reaches a crescendo, we thought it would be useful to once again examine some of the most frequently aired ads. With the help of Kantar Media, we identified the 10 ads from each campaign with the greatest spending on them. We then selected five from each side, with a bias toward picking ads that were released recently. (There is one additional Romney ad that we note - but do not rate.) Where appropriate, we also include links to our original column on the ad.

Looking at these ads, we are struck by the consistent themes, with Obama portraying Romney as a heartless corporate raider and Romney portraying Obama as a hapless president.

Obama campaign ads

Obama: 'Firms'

This sly, almost wicked ad features Mitt Romney signing "America the beautiful" while images flash of his alleged connections overseas - his Bain Capital firms shipping jobs to Mexico and China, outsourcing jobs to India as governor, and his use of a Swiss bank account and tax havens overseas. We did not rate this specific ad, but have investigated most of these claims and they are exaggerated or lack evidence.

A similar ad earned Four Pinocchios, but this one, on a blended basis, gets Three.

Obama: 'Believes'

This ad hits Romney as believing in "outsourcing" while touting Obama as an advocate of "insourcing." The charge against Romney is based on a Washington Post article that, as we have often noted, is not correctly quoted by the Obama campaign.

Obama: 'Heard It All Before'

This ad trashes Romney's economic record as Massachusetts governor, frequently stretching the truth. It claims Massachusetts was 47th in job creation in the nation, but that is a blended four-year rating, and thus ignores the fact that Romney boosted the Bay State's standing - from 50th to 28th - in tough economic times. The Massachusetts state debt did increase by $2.6 billion, but as we have explained much of that was for capital investments such as public buildings and roads, not operating expenses. We had awarded Two Pinocchios to a similar Obama ad.

Obama: 'My Job'

This highly effective ad uses Mitt Romney's own words about the "47 percent of Americans" who do not pay federal income taxes - secretly video-taped at a Boca Raton fundraiser - against him. The ad simply plays Romney's dismissive comments as photographs of ordinary, working Americans flash by. When the video was first revealed by Mother Jones magazine, we gave Three Pinocchios to Romney for failing recognize that many of these people do pay other taxes, especially payroll taxes. Romney has since said his remarks were "just completely wrong." But the impact of this ad may be long felt. We cannot find anything misleading or false in it, so it earns a rare Geppetto Checkmark.

Obama: 'Table'

This is an unusually long ad - two minutes - in which Obama talks directly to the camera and outlines his plans for the nation. We had previously given this ad Three Pinocchios for Obama's claim that Romney would "double down" on the same tax-cut and regulatory policies that led the economic crisis. There is no evidence that the George W. Bush tax cuts led to the economic crisis. In this ad, Obama also repeats a claim we have frequently faulted - that the savings from ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq can be used for nation-building at home and to reduce the deficit. It is a budgetary gimmick that still puts the money on the credit card that Obama has long decried as bad policy under Bush.

Romney campaign ads

Romney: 'Shame on You'

We were surprised to discover that two of Romney's top 10 ads - this one and a similar one titled "No Evidence" - featured the conclusions of a Fact Checker column about an Obama Bain Capital ad, which we had given 4 Pinocchios. These ads also feature then Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton complaining about misleading ads - what the Romney ad calls "vicious lies" - run by her then rival, Sen. Barack Obama. She of course now works for Obama as his secretary of State. We are uncomfortable rating something that quotes this column so we will simply note it for the record.

Romney: 'Where Did the Money Go?'

This kitchen-soup ad throws out a lot of charges about Obama's stimulus bill - claims about crony capitalism, and also money spent on supposed windmills in China and electric cars from Finland. It also features a quote by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), which in intended to validate the claims but turned out to be out-of-date and overtaken by events. On balance, when we previously rated the ad, it earned Two Pinocchios.

Romney: 'These Hands'

This ad features a small businessman who denounces Obama for his comments - taken out of context - that "if you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." From a reading of the full comment, made in a campaign speech, it is pretty clear that the "that" referred to roads and bridges, as part of a riff on how the wealthy should give something back to the government because they benefit from it in many ways. (Later it emerged that the business owner featured in the ad had benefited from millions of dollars in government contracts.) But that did not stop Republicans from making "build that" the theme of the first night of the GOP Convention. We awarded this quote-twisting Three Pinocchios when this ad first aired over the summer.

Romney: 'Paid In'

This ad focuses on Medicare, in particular the claim that Obama took more than $700 billion from Medicare to fund the health care law. We have repeatedly noted the problems with the claim that he "cut" Medicare by that amount - and we have also highlighted the fact that the budget plan authored by Romney's running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, kept much of the same Medicare savings but dedicated it to other purposes. The most objectionable part about this ad is that it suggests that Obama is taking money that seniors had "paid in" to the system, when in fact the reductions are aimed mostly at hospitals and providers.

Romney: 'Stand Up to China'

Two of Romney's top 10 ads feature China, and this one is particularly misleading. The ad claims that Obama's policies toward China have "cost us 2 million jobs." The claim was based on a 2011 report from the International Trade Commission concerning the impact of Chinese intellectual-property infringements. The report noted that improving protection of such rights could lead to an additional 2.1 million jobs - but that is not the result of Obama's policies. The report framed it as an opportunity lost, not the disappearance of jobs. In fact, the report notes that the Obama administration had taken action on the issue. This ad earned Three Pinocchios.

Romney: 'Too Many Americans'

This 60-second ad is Romney's speak-to-the-camera moment; it was intended to help mitigate the fallout from his "47 percent" comments. He throws out a lot of statistics about economic woes in the United States, but his most misleading comment is about his own economic plan - that it would create 12 million jobs. As we have previously noted, that is in line with what economists think will happen - no matter who is president.

(About our rating scale)

Check out our candidate Pinocchio Tracker

Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook .

Track each presidential candidate's campaign ads

Read our biggest Pinocchios

LOAD-DATE: September 19, 2013

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

PUBLICATION-TYPE: Web Blog

The Big Bird counterattack

BYLINE: Charles Krauthammer

SECTION: EDITORIAL COPY; Pg. A21

LENGTH: 735 words

No mystery about the trajectory of this race. It was static for months as President Obama held a marginal lead. Then came the conventions. The Republicans squandered Tampa; the Democrats got a 3- to 4-point bounce out of Charlotte.

And kept it. Until the first debate. In 90 minutes, Mitt Romney wiped out the bump - and maybe more.

Democrats are shellshocked and left searching for excuses. Start with scapegoats: the hapless John Kerry, Obama's sparring partner in the practice debates, for going too soft on the boss; then the debate moderator for not exerting enough control.

The Obama campaign's plea that the commander in chief could find no shelter under Jim Lehrer's desk did not exactly bolster Obama's standing. Moreover, the moderator's job is not to control the flow of argument, but to simply enforce an even time split.

Lehrer did. In fact, Obama took more time than Romney - 41 / 2 minutes more - while actually speaking 500 fewer words. Romney knew what he thought and said it. Obama kept looking around hoping for the words to come to him. They didn't.

After the scapegoats came the excuses.

lObama had a bad night. He was off his game.

Nonsense. This is Obama's game. Great at delivering telepromptered addresses to adoring Germans and swooning students. But he's not very good on his feet.

His problem is that he doesn't think so. He not only believes his own press, he believes his own mythology. He actually said (in 2007): "I think that I'm a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And . . . I'm a better political director than my political director."

Obama is a man of considerable intelligence. But he's not half as transcendently smart as he thinks he is.

He needs a servant in his chariot reminding him that he's not an immortal. Of course, after the debate the entire Democratic Party told him he's a dud. Wrong again. He's neither lord nor commoner. He's just an above-average politician who needs a very good night in one of the next two debates.

lHe was weighed down by the burdens of office.

Ah yes, the burdens of office. Like going on "The View" while meeting with not a single foreign leader at the United Nations. Like flying to a Vegas campaign rally the day after a U.S. consulate is sacked and the ambassador murdered. Like rushing off to New York for a night with Jay-Z and Beyonce.

Rocky Mountain altitude is a better excuse than that. (Thank you, Al Gore.)

lReductionism.